When the government bows down to the socialist mentality like that displayed by Col Gene and the loons like him and starts regulating incomes we may as well just hand over the deeds of all private property to Uncle Sam and start flying the hammer and sickle instead of the stars and stripes.

When you attempt to place an artificial price on services, lo and behold, you get a shortage in services or substandard services. There is simply no real government control over services, unless you install an iron curtain.

We have a shortage of physicians here in Canada and that is part of the reason why. Essentially, each provincial government has tried to restrain how much doctors get paid, with little real negotiation taking place. Lately, these governments have had to backpedal somewhat on their efforts because of the exodus of physicians to the States, as American physicians earn about double what their Canadian counterparts do.

Even if a particular jurisdiction doesn't subscribe to a free market policy, the world is still a free market environment. I use this to illustrate from my personal experience. My family is all here and I am very happy to be paid what I am paid, but boy we could use more doctors around here.

Sometimes when I see the enormous bonuses paid out by large companies to incompetent CEOs I'm inclined to agree with Col Gene. But then I remember - companies have stockholders. It's up to them how much they pay their staff. And if they're stupid enough to pay a CEO who loses them money a multi-million dollar bonus then the company deserves to fail. Shareholders are the citizens of the corporate democracy, and it's not up to us outside to tell them how to waste their cash.

As for simply taxing it I'm against that. If the industry is essential and it's being run badly and hurting ordinary people, industry legislation should be freed up to encourage competition. Competition more than taxes will make for a better world.

As for Exxon's huge profits, well, as you say it's only 10%. And as a huge multinational they can be shamed into being a good corporate citizen (ie all that environmental funding petrol and mining companies seem to hand out these days). And that's better than nothing. If we have to have amoral companies, and frankly our technology and economies demand it, then the best way to make them more tolerable is to shame them into cleaning up their mess, not tax them and then do it for them.

This goes back to oldschool Marxist thinking. Exploitation of the working class in terms of the subject of labor is some sort of ultimate sin, yet... how often would the subjects of labor come together and build successful enterprises spontaneously? Ever? It's like imagining that a body can come together and work in its own interest without a brain.

Perhaps someday, way down the road in human evolution, it will be possible. Right now, though, people won't work if it isn't in THEIR interest to work. The working classes accept lower wages because they get to avoid the trouble and responsibility of taking such gambles upon themselves. Maybe sometime in the distant future the population as a whole will see the need for a factory, and just come together and put one together collectively.

That's why Marx was just a tad smart by suggesting that these things evolve, from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, etc., etc. The only way it progresses, though, is if PEOPLE progress. Forcing them to fit into an evolutionary mold they haven't grown into is insanity, and it won't ever work.

Sometimes when I see the enormous bonuses paid out by large companies to incompetent CEOs I'm inclined to agree with Col Gene. But then I remember - companies have stockholders. It's up to them how much they pay their staff. And if they're stupid enough to pay a CEO who loses them money a multi-million dollar bonus then the company deserves to fail. Shareholders are the citizens of the corporate democracy, and it's not up to us outside to tell them how to waste their cash.

Precisely.  It's the shareholders who should decide how much management is paid.  Not the government. The government doesn't rule us. It's just a service provider unto itself. Should our neighborhood association weigh in too?

But let's be real, the word "greed" is recklessly thrown around by the economic losers of our society. It's the word used by people who don't produce at those who do produce. And rather than trying to provide an alternative or choosing a different product/service they would rather that the men with guns (the government) confiscated the wealth generated by producers to give to the non-productive class.

I think that sums it up.  Those who risk all, and are smart, gain the most.  Those too timid to risk it, muddle along.  And the point of the gun is not going to help the latter - no matter how envious they are of the former.  They can only cripple the former.

Now, in the case of an Exxon, market forces are severely restrained because you can't just start up an oil company.

And also because most oil companies are nationalized, and the supply of oil is restricted by OPEC... it's a marvel the free market is able to get its hands on any oil at all.

However, when you look at all the other countries where a small group of undeserving people finds ways to skim off huge amounts of oil wealth, you have to be ready to believe the same thing could be happening here. If the President and Vice President were former software executives, I'd be a little more skeptical that Microsoft earned its profits in the free market too.

Did you see that video of Hillary Clinton saying she wanted to take the oil companies' profits? Very Col Gene-esque... (not that I really believe she's that far left.)

and the supply of oil is restricted by OPEC

Actually, OPEC only controls 40% of the supply.  A significant amount, but by no means all of it.

The error in this article is in assuming that because the economy can work one way, it can't work any other way. Sure, the capitalist system is effective, but it's also extremely self-destructive. It begins truly free-market, then regulations are slowly added until the government controls so much that the economy grinds to a halt and passes its load to a newer free market. The US free market is waning, and we're sending far more money out of the country (via outsourcing and importing) than we're bringing in, and though I feel confident that the current system will last long enough for my lifetime, I have doubts about its stability beyond that.

The reason for that, as I see it, is that the market is imploding as we create fewer and fewer production jobs (producing crops, mining minerals, and other industries that actually create wealth) and more and more service jobs (professionals of all types, particularly internet-based, that consume products but don't create anything)--and it doesn't help that even our services don't compete well with outsourced services when there's an opportunity for competition. Meaning, the government is exploding (not in the incendiary sense, of course; I just mean it's getting bigger and bigger) because, like the education system, it has no reason to be efficient. Every department is begging for more money whether they need it or not, and the military is the worst of them. I'm not opposed to a strong military, but I am opposed to a military with no financial responsibility.

So if capitalism is short-lived but effective, is it so ludicrous to suggest that maybe communism is a viable framework that has never been implemented properly? I tend to think of communism as a sure way to give too few people too much power; but, with the advent of sophisticated computing models, could we not hand the future over to an impartial set of circuits, leading overrides to the general populace? For the first time, it is possible to have a genuinely benevolent dictator. Naturally, such software would be years and years in the making, but it is well within our grasp.

So: to answer your question (who should decide how much I make): I think that I should, collectively with my fellow citizen. The base rate, of course, would be nothing at all--in exchange for my allotment of the common distribution. Incentives would be offered for additional effort and performance, and those incentives would be proportional to my education, experience, and record (and, basically, everything that the society wants to encourage).

...I just hate it when a blog gets posted and everybody chimes in happily with, "yes, that's right, and here's why from my point of view, too." I thought we could use another point of view, even if my understanding of communism probably won't stand up to serious scrutiny.

Dan

So if capitalism is short-lived but effective, is it so ludicrous to suggest that maybe communism is a viable framework that has never been implemented properly?

I think communism in theory sounds wonderful. Everyone gives according to their ability and takes according to their need. I don't think it will ever work that way in reality. Number one people aren't motivated to work for the common good. We are motivated to work for ourselves and our family. Also there always seems to be a privledged class that takes more than they need.

As for the oil companies, I am one of the great unwashed that the high gas prices really hit us hard and it's hard to see the oil companies taking in record profits while saying that there was a strong wind off the gulf and now prices have to go up again. If they were just passing on their higher costs then why would their profits be so high? Am I only one who thought it was a little too convenient that oil prices went down before the election and back up after the election?

There are many industries that the goverment regulates that haven't had to call out troops to enforce their rules. Why would the oil industry be any different?

So if capitalism is short-lived but effective, is it so ludicrous to suggest that maybe communism is a viable framework that has never been implemented properly?

I don't think that capitalism is short-lived.  It's what drives people all over to do better.

Communism in the US?  Are you serious?  Do you really ever see Americans doing what's right for the common good and only taking the same amount that they put in?  We can't even regulate Welfare and SSD, how the heck would Communism (or even socialism) ever work? 

Places like China are taking jobs from us because of capitalism.  The economy is failing because of a lot of issues, and it's not all government, and it's not because of capitalism.  Such as: Ever look at what an unskilled Union laborer makes on average?  Ever look at what the average American owes in credit card debt?  How many people claim Welfare or declare bankruptcy each year?

 

 

The error in this article is in assuming that because the economy can work one way, it can't work any other way. Sure, the capitalist system is effective, but it's also extremely self-destructive. It begins truly free-market, then regulations are slowly added until the government controls so much that the economy grinds to a halt and passes its load to a newer free market. The US free market is waning, and we're sending far more money out of the country (via outsourcing and importing) than we're bringing in, and though I feel confident that the current system will last long enough for my lifetime, I have doubts about its stability beyond that. The reason for that, as I see it, is that the market is imploding as we create fewer and fewer production jobs (producing crops, mining minerals, and other industries that actually create wealth) and more and more service jobs (professionals of all types, particularly internet-based, that consume products but don't create anything)--and it doesn't help that even our services don't compete well with outsourced services when there's an opportunity for competition. Meaning, the government is exploding (not in the incendiary sense, of course; I just mean it's getting bigger and bigger) because, like the education system, it has no reason to be efficient. Every department is begging for more money whether they need it or not, and the military is the worst of them. I'm not opposed to a strong military, but I am opposed to a military with no financial responsibility. So if capitalism is short-lived but effective, is it so ludicrous to suggest that maybe communism is a viable framework that has never been implemented properly? I tend to think of communism as a sure way to give too few people too much power; but, with the advent of sophisticated computing models, could we not hand the future over to an impartial set of circuits, leading overrides to the general populace? For the first time, it is possible to have a genuinely benevolent dictator. Naturally, such software would be years and years in the making, but it is well within our grasp. So: to answer your question (who should decide how much I make): I think that I should, collectively with my fellow citizen. The base rate, of course, would be nothing at all--in exchange for my allotment of the common distribution. Incentives would be offered for additional effort and performance, and those incentives would be proportional to my education, experience, and record (and, basically, everything that the society wants to encourage). ...I just hate it when a blog gets posted and everybody chimes in happily with, "yes, that's right, and here's why from my point of view, too." I thought we could use another point of view, even if my understanding of communism probably won't stand up to serious scrutiny.

Starting out by saying "The error in this article is.." and then following it up with what amounts to a bunch of subjective, baseless nonsense is extremely off-putting. "Capitalism is extremely self destructive". How? I mean, heck, sex is "extremely self-destructive".  Going for a walk is "extremely self-destructive". It all depends on how you define it.

The US free market is not waning and our economy is not in decline.  We have all kinds of measurements for the health of an economy and there's nothing that even remotely indicates that the long-term trend of the US economy is negative.

Beware of being fooled by absolute numbers.  "The government is exploding".  What % of our GDP is the government? What % of our GDP was taken up by the government 25 years ago? (I'll give you a hint, it was less).

Capitalism has existed for thousands of years.  At its most basic point, it is one person making a thing and that person setting a price on the value of that thing to sell to someone else who can freely choose to buy or not buy that thing. That is the essence of capitalism.

Where things go astray is when well meaning but foolish people start espousing things like communism or socialism and say that the person who makes the thing no longer has a say over what price they can set for that thing or whether the thing should have been made in the first place.

Socialism tends to creep into societies but it is by no means inevitable.  As long as people are vigilant (do Americans REALLY want to live like the people in Denmark? Is that their goal?), socialism, like other types of waste, can be controlled.

Communism is not a viable framework because it assumes people will work for a common good 100% of the time.  That's a recipe for disaster because the people who produce the most are keenly aware that they are producing the most.  I would never work for the common good because I don't care about the common good.  Capitalism works because I benefit personally from working for the common good. And my benefit is in proportion to how much I help the common good which is absolutely key.

What I suggested is to STOP Tax cuts to an industry that does not need a tax cut and for which the taxpayers do not benefit. We are borrowing every cent we gave the oil companied in tax credits. Apply a higher tax rate to these increased profits that were developed not from offering a better product or from increased productivity by increasing the retail prices to a helpless consumers-- individuals and business. That added revenue would be used under my suggestion to provide Alternate sources of energy that would benefit the population overall.

WRONG! The US Government gave NOTHING to the oil companies. They just did not take it all. So there is no borrowing to pay for anything, since it is not the government's in the first place. Only after the oil companies GIVE the government their taxes has a transferred of money occurred. The government gave them nothing, just took LESS.

Econ 101.

It's been almost a century now. Dismal failure after dismal failure. This week we hear that Venezuela's wilting socialist mess isn't even able to keep food on the table.

Communism and Socialism will be possible in the large scale IF people evolve in that direction. Right now we simply do not function that way, and no amount of social engineering can really force it. Right now we can't even get people to pay taxes without the threat of prosecution, much less accept a lesser lifestyle as a whole.

Right now it is like expecting a human body to come together without a brain. People will not just "collectively" form factories, corporations, etc., without people who take the added responsibility and risk involved with administration. The rest get paid less because they don't have the risk and responsibility.

People can't be expected to take up the responsibility of administration, formation of these large enterprises and then just make the same as the guy that wanders in and puts in an application. Someone who is responsible for the livelihoods of quite often hundreds of thousands of people isn't someone you want to have $100k a year dedication to his job.